Pestana v. Bank of America: United Law Center Appeal Secures Reversal of Decision on Critical Piece of Unfair Competition Litigation in Mortgage Modification Process

United Law Center (ULC), the California consumer law firm leading the litigation charge against wrongful foreclosure, modification and title fraud, is celebrating the First Appellate District Court’s reversal of a lower court’s decision denying a cause of action under the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Sect. 17200.) in Pestana v. Bank of America N.A. (pending publication).

Sacramento, CA (PRWEB) June 20, 2014

United Law Center (ULC), the California consumer law firm leading the litigation charge against wrongful foreclosure, modification and title fraud, is celebrating the First Appellate District Court’s reversal of a lower court’s decision denying a cause of action under the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Sect. 17200.) in Pestana v. Bank of America N.A. (pending publication). Pestana’s suit alleged that his bank and its servicer conducted unfair or fraudulent business practices by telling him that only if he stopped making mortgage payments would they consider him for a loan modification. Based on a previously published California case law by ULC, Bushell v. JPMorgan/Chase (3rd Dist. Ct. App. No. C070643), homeowners in California may sue on a fraud cause of action for false promise if a bank promises a homeowner a modification, but ends up denying the modification. ULC has four published cases in California. For more information please visit http://www.UnitedLawCenter.com.

Plaintiff Daniel Pestana had sued his mortgage loan servicers, Bank of America, N.A., and BAC Home Loans Servicing (LP) after he was denied a loan modification under the federal Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP), but offered a less favorable in-house modification, which he accepted. This is the common practice in the mortgage modification process:

1.    The bank allegedly told Pestana that they would not consider a modification of his mortgage unless he stopped making payments; in reliance on that promise Pestana stopped making payments and was promised a HAMP modification;

2.    For more than a year, the bank stalled in the evaluation process, allowing Pestana’s account to accrue additional late fees and penalties which damaged his credit while the bank was further enriched with increased servicing fees;

3.    The bank falsely told Pestana, a qualified borrower, that he did not qualify for a HAMP modification but instead was given a less favorable in-house modification;

While other causes of action denied by the trial court (Contra Costa County were sustained on appeal, ULC found success in this one very powerful cause of action, unfair competition or “unfair business practices”.

“The Pestana case could serve as yet another powerful example of how the banks are continuing to manipulate for profit and take advantage of California homeowners pursuing the modification process,” explained United Law Center’s managing partner and founder, Stephen J. Foondos. “We have represented thousands of homeowners who have suffered this same experience. We have found success in suing their bank and servicer directly for such violations with some receiving settlements into the six figures or more. “

Homeowners interested in determining if they have a case similar to Pestana or other landmark mortgage real estate cases like Bushell or Glaski can visit http://www.unitedlawcenter.com and take a few minutes to fill out a simple form about their experience with their mortgage company or servicer. They can also call United Law Center at 916-367-0622 to book a free, no-time limit consultation.

About United Law Center

United Law Center is the consumer law firm leading the litigation charge against wrongful foreclosure, modification and title fraud and other consumer oriented violations in California. With four published cases on the books in California, United Law Center is securing case law in favor of homeowners fighting banks to keep their homes. Millions of homeowners were affected by the fraudulent banking practices from 2003 to 2008 and United Law Center is on a mission to help right those wrongs. To determine if a homeowner has a valid case, they are encouraged to visit http://www.unitedlawcenter.com to schedule a free no-time-limit consultation.

You can find the original release here.

FOX40’s Paul Robins, main anchor of FOX40 in the morning in Sacramento, interviews Managing Partner Stephen Foondos about how to determine if your bank is violating laws in the modification process.

See the interview from the FOX40 website by clicking here

You can find another reference from the National Mortgage News article HERE.

Yuba jury awards $16 million in mortgage case

Friday, July 18, 2014

by Dale Kasler, SacBee.com

A jury has awarded $16.2 million in damages to a Yuba County homeowner who nearly lost his home to foreclosure after his loan servicer botched his mortgage modification, his lawyers said today.

Phillip Linza, a homeowner in Plumas Lake, was awarded the damages after a three-year battle against PHH Mortgage Services, a loan servicer based in Mount Laurel, N.J. A Yuba County Superior Court jury decided on the award earlier this week.

Linza’s attorneys Andre Chernay and Jon Oldenburg of the United Law Center in Roseville, said the award included $514,000 in compensatory damages and $15.7 million in punitive damages. They said it ranked among the biggest jury awards they’ve encountered in years of representing homeowners in foreclosure and other mortgage-related cases.

“This is really the highest we’ve seen,” Oldenburg said. “It’s a huge figure.”

Officials with PHH couldn’t be reached for comment. The company’s lawyers Edward Treder and Darlene Hernandez declined comment.

Chernay said the case began when Linza, who works in sales, fell on hard financial times after buying a home in 2006 for approximately $280,000. Court records show Linza filed for personal bankruptcy in October 2009.

According to his lawsuit, PHH agreed in late 2010 to a loan modification that was supposed to reduce Linza’s monthly payments to $1,543 from $2,100. The new loan was supposed to take effect in January 2011.

After Linza made three monthly payments under the new terms, PHH began sending him letters demanding different amounts. First it said his new payment was $2,350 a month – slightly higher than before the modification. Later it sent him a notice saying he owed PHH some $7.056. The company also told him it wasn’t applying his monthly payments to his loan balance because he wasn’t paying the proper amount, according to Chernay.

“It was their mistake as of January 1st (2011) that created this whole scenario,” Chernay said.

Despite numerous phone calls and letters, Chernay said Linza wasn’t able to resolve the problem. After learning that his payments weren’t being used to reduce his balance, he stopped sending money to PHH, the lawyer said.

In 2012, the loan-servicing company initiated foreclosure proceedings. The proceedings halted when the Roseville law firm stepped in and filed suit on Linza’s behalf, Chernay said.

Even with the foreclosure stopped, Linza’s credit rating suffered and he endured emotional stress, Chernay said.

“If the Yuba County jury hadn’t saved him, the house would have been gone and he would have had to move in with his daughter in Colorado,” Chernay said.